NVIDIA Quadro 4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a stark picture: the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M utterly dominates the Quadro 4000 in the only shared test. In Geekbench OpenCL, the M3000M scores 16,646 against the Quadro 4000's 4,979. That is a 70.1% advantage for the newer card, a margin so wide it dwarfs any architectural refinement. The Quadro 4000's score places it a hair ahead of the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (4,970) by 0.2%, and trails the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4,998) by 0.4%. It is a marginal, forgettable performance tier.

The M3000M, by contrast, sits in a different league entirely. Its 16,646 OpenCL result is roughly 3.3 times the Quadro 4000's figure. The M3000M's nearest rival, the GeForce GTX 970M, scores 4,628 — a 0.1% gap that is effectively noise. But the raw compute delta between the two Quadros is not noise; it is a generational chasm. The M3000M also posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 16,668, a figure that reinforces its compute lead, though the Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan result to compare. In DirectX and compute workloads, the M3000M's Passmark scores (DirectX 10: 26, DirectX 11: 42, DirectX 12: 23, DirectX 9: 98, G2D: 402, G3D: 5,543, GPU Compute: 2,139) show a card that is at least functional across legacy APIs. The Quadro 4000 has no such entries, leaving its legacy API performance unmeasured.

The wins tally is unambiguous: the M3000M takes 1 win, the Quadro 4000 takes 0. Every measurable metric favors the newer part. Benchmark results indicate that the Quadro 4000, despite its workstation pedigree, is outclassed in raw throughput by a factor of more than three. The M3000M's average benchmark score of 4,621 across all tests is lower than its OpenCL peak, reflecting the inclusion of slower DirectX and compute subtests, but it still eclipses the Quadro 4000's single-score average of 4,979? No — actually, the Quadro 4000's average is 4,979, which is higher than the M3000M's average of 4,621. That is a quirk of the data: the M3000M's OpenCL score is massive, but its other benchmark results drag the average down. The Quadro 4000 has only one benchmark, so its average equals that one score.

This inversion is worth noting. The M3000M's OpenCL result is 70.1% higher than the Quadro 4000's, yet its overall average is 7.2% lower. That means the M3000M's DirectX and G2D scores are far weaker relative to its OpenCL capability. For compute-heavy workloads, the M3000M is the clear winner; for mixed legacy workloads, the data is less flattering to the newer card. The Quadro 4000's single OpenCL score of 4,979 lands at the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the M3000M's average sits at the 27th percentile. The percentile rankings are nearly identical, despite the 70% delta in the head-to-head test. This suggests the benchmark pool includes many faster cards that dilute the M3000M's advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the only shared benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins decisively in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 16,646 versus the Quadro 4000's 4,979, a delta of 70.1% in favor of the M3000M.

Q: Do the two cards have similar overall benchmark averages?

A: No. The Quadro 4000's average benchmark score is 4,979, while the M3000M's average is 4,621. The M3000M's lower average is due to its slower Passmark DirectX and G2D scores, which pull the mean down despite its high OpenCL result.

Q: How do the cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro 4000 is 0.2% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (4,970) and 0.4% slower than the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4,998). The M3000M is 0.1% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4,628) and 0.8% slower than the AMD Radeon R5 M320 (4,657).

Q: Which card has better compute performance?

A: The M3000M has far superior compute performance, with an OpenCL score of 16,646 versus the Quadro 4000's 4,979. It also posts a Vulkan score of 16,668, while the Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan result.

Q: What is the M3000M's Passmark G3D score?

A: The M3000M scores 5,543 in Passmark G3D, alongside a GPU compute score of 2,139. The Quadro 4000 has no corresponding Passmark data.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life. The Quadro 4000 was released on November 1, 2010, while the M3000M came later, on August 17, 2015.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different silicon. The Quadro 4000 uses the GF100 chip, based on the Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This is a large, power-hungry die: 3,100 million transistors spread across 529 mm², yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million per mm². The M3000M, in contrast, uses the GM204 chip under the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a more refined 28 nm node. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a smaller 398 mm² die, achieving a much higher density of 13.1 million per mm². The M3000M's newer process allows more than two-thirds additional transistors in a smaller area.

The compute resources differ drastically. The Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The M3000M quadruples the shading units to 1,024, doubles the TMUs to 64, and keeps the same 32 ROPs. This raw hardware advantage translates directly into peak throughput: the Quadro 4000 delivers 486.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the M3000M reaches 1.892 TFLOPS — nearly four times higher. Pixel fill rates tell a similar story: 7.600 GPixel/s for the Quadro 4000 versus 29.57 GPixel/s for the M3000M. Texture fill rates jump from 15.20 GTexel/s to 59.14 GTexel/s.

The memory subsystems also diverge. Both use GDDR5, but the Quadro 4000 has 2 GB on a 256-bit bus, yielding 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth. The M3000M doubles capacity to 4 GB, keeps the 256-bit bus, and nearly doubles bandwidth to 160.4 GB/s. The memory clock is also higher: the M3000M runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus the Quadro 4000's 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The M3000M also supports a base clock of 823 MHz and boost of 924 MHz, while the Quadro 4000 has no listed base or boost clocks — only its memory clock.

Feature support differs significantly. The Quadro 4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. The M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The M3000M also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Quadro 4000 is stuck on PCIe 2.0 x16. The M3000M's Maxwell 2.0 architecture is a more modern design, with better geometry processing and power efficiency, though the data does not list specific architectural features beyond these core specs.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. The process node is the most fundamental split: 40 nm for the Quadro 4000 versus 28 nm for the M3000M. Transistor counts are 3,100 million versus 5,200 million, and die sizes are 529 mm² versus 398 mm². The M3000M has a higher transistor density at 13.1M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm². Shading units jump from 256 to 1,024, TMUs from 32 to 64, while ROPs remain at 32 for both.

Clock speeds show the M3000M's advantage: base clock of 823 MHz and boost of 924 MHz, with memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), versus the Quadro 4000's memory-only clock of 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). Memory capacity doubles from 2 GB to 4 GB, and bandwidth rises from 89.86 GB/s to 160.4 GB/s. The FP32 compute figure leaps from 486.4 GFLOPS to 1.892 TFLOPS. Pixel rate goes from 7.600 GPixel/s to 29.57 GPixel/s, and texture rate from 15.20 GTexel/s to 59.14 GTexel/s.

Power and physical specs diverge sharply. The Quadro 4000 has a TDP of 142 W, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 300 W. It is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The M3000M is far more efficient at 75 W TDP, has no power connectors, and uses an MXM module form factor with no listed dimensions. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro 4000 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, while the M3000M's outputs are "Portable Device Dependent." The bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 on the Quadro 4000 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 on the M3000M. The Quadro 4000 has a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD; the M3000M has no listed MSRP.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is the superior performer in compute workloads. Its OpenCL score of 16,646 is 70.1% higher than the Quadro 4000's 4,979, and its FP32 throughput of 1.892 TFLOPS is nearly four times the older card's 486.4 GFLOPS. The M3000M also offers double the memory (4 GB versus 2 GB), nearly double the bandwidth (160.4 GB/s versus 89.86 GB/s), and a more modern feature set including Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12_1. Its 75 W TDP makes it far more efficient than the Quadro 4000's 142 W demand.

The Quadro 4000 has one narrow advantage: its average benchmark score of 4,979 is higher than the M3000M's 4,621. But that is a statistical artifact of the M3000M's slower DirectX and G2D scores, not a reflection of real-world performance. The M3000M's single OpenCL result crushes the Quadro 4000's only benchmark. Any buyer choosing the Quadro 4000 for compute would be leaving a 70% performance margin on the table.

For users whose workloads are compute-heavy — OpenCL, Vulkan, or modern DirectX 12 — the M3000M is the only rational choice. Its 4 GB frame buffer, higher bandwidth, and fourfold shading units make it a far more capable workstation part. The Quadro 4000, with its Fermi architecture and 2010 release date, is a relic that only makes sense for legacy applications that require its specific display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort) or its single-slot form factor. The M3000M's MXM module form factor, however, means it is only suitable for portable devices, whereas the Quadro 4000 is a desktop card.

The verdict is straightforward: the M3000M wins on raw performance, efficiency, and modern API support. The Quadro 4000 holds a niche for users who need a desktop card with specific outputs and do not require compute throughput. For everything else, the M3000M is the data-backed pick.